Heller: Arguments done
Earliest report indicates lots of us may have been wrong on Kennedy:
The Supreme Court’s historic argument Tuesday on the meaning of the Constitution’s Second Amendment sent out one quite clear signal: individuals may well wind up with a genuine right to have a gun for self-defense in their home. But what was not similarly clear was what kind of gun that would entail, and thus what kind of limitations government cut put on access or use of a weapon. In an argument that ran 23 minutes beyond the allotted time, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy emerged as a strong defender of the right of domestic self-defense.
Update: AP has a bit here:
The Supreme Court has heard arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment and the Districts of Columbia’s ban on handguns.
A majority appears to support the view that the amendment protects an individual’s right to own guns, rather than somehow linking right to service in a state militia.
But it is less clear what that means for the District’s 32-year-old ban on handguns, perhaps the strictest gun control law in the nation.
“Does that make it unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate…to say no handguns here?” Justice Stephen Breyer said.
On the other side, Chief Justice John Roberts asked at one point: “What is reasonable about a ban on possession” of handguns?
March 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
They’ll rule there’s a theoretical individual right to possess firearms, but with a definition of ‘reasonable restrictions’ so broad that no ban will ever infringe this right in practice.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
If the good guys end up winning this one 5-4, I’m going to have to re-think my longstanding opposition to Arlen Specter for his role in helping the Democrats bork Bork.
March 18th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
It bothers me that they consider any particular weapon more dangerous than another. A fully automatic .577 Tyrannosaur in my hands poses less risk to others than a bolt action .22LR in the hands of a criminal. How can you regulate that?
March 18th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Beware reading too much into the questions and comments from behind the bench during the arguments. Most judges will play devil’s advocate just to make sure that they understand the other side’s arguments.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Don’t those Justices live in D.C. ? They have to be well aware that plenty of handguns exist and are in use there. Just not by the lawabiding residents, which was Justice Breyer’s point, IMHO.